CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A manifesto for a globally diverse, equitable, and inclusive open science

Ghai, Sakshi, Thériault, Rémi, Forscher, Patrick, Shoda, Yuichi, Syed, Moin, Puthillam, Arathy, Peng, Hu Chuan, Basnight-Brown, Dana, Majid, Asifa, Azevedo, Flavio, Singh, Leher·2025·Communications Psychology
DOI 10.1038/s44271-024-00179-1PMC PMC11779813
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s44271-024-00179-1

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Potential threats (in red) to diverse open science. Potential threats include not specifying target populations, reliance on skewed theoretical frameworks, selection bias, poor study design, lack of culturally adapted methods, failure to account for within-country diversity, not accounting for sampling biases and adjustments (e.g., weighting or post stratification), unwarranted claims of generalisability, and citation bias. These cumulative issues lead to making assumptions based on skewed knowledge (MASKing), distorting research conclusions and undermining the validity of research. This figure is inspired by Munafo et al.1 which addressed the issue of HARKing
Fig. 1 Potential threats (in red) to diverse open science. Potential threats include not specifying target populations, reliance on skewed theoretical frameworks, selection bias, poor study design, lack of culturally adapted methods, failure to account for within-country diversity, not accounting for sampling biases and adjustments (e.g., weighting or post stratification), unwarranted claims of generalisability, and citation bias. These cumulative issues lead to making assumptions based on skewed knowledge (MASKing), distorting research conclusions and undermining the validity of research. This figure is inspired by Munafo et al.1 which addressed the issue of HARKingCC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 The Missing Majority in Psychology, over time and continents. Scatter plot of percentage of first authors by continent, over time, for a list of popular academic psychology journals. Journals were selected based on Thalmayer et al. 73, by soliciting input from colleagues, and from the authors’ own knowledge base. Data from the Missing Majority in Behavioural Science Dashboard (psychology tab) on October 19, 2024, available at https://remi-theriault.com/dashboards/missing_majority.
Fig. 2 The Missing Majority in Psychology, over time and continents. Scatter plot of percentage of first authors by continent, over time, for a list of popular academic psychology journals. Journals were selected based on Thalmayer et al. 73, by soliciting input from colleagues, and from the authors’ own knowledge base. Data from the Missing Majority in Behavioural Science Dashboard (psychology tab) on October 19, 2024, available at https://remi-theriault.com/dashboards/missing_majority.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Med. 2, e124 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  2. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychol. Sci. 23, 524–532 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359–1366 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010). discussion 83-135. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Hruschka, D. J., Medin, D. L., Rogoff, B. & Henrich, J. Pressing questions in the study of psychological and behavioral diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 115, 11366–11368 (2018). · DOI
  6. Schooler, J. W. Turning the Lens of Science on Itself: Verbal Overshadowing, Replication, and Metascience. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9, 579–584 (2014). · DOI
  7. IJzerman, H. et al. Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1092–1094 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Forscher, P. S. et al. The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17456916221082970 https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221082970. (2022) · DOI
  9. Muthukrishna, M. et al. Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance. Psychol. Sci. 31, 678–701 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tiokhin, L., Hackman, J., Munira, S., Jesmin, K. & Hruschka, D. Generalizability is not optional: insights from a cross-cultural study of social discounting. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181386 (2019). · DOI
  11. Yarkoni, T. The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci. 45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20001685, (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Ghai, S., Forscher, P. S. & Chuan-Peng, H. Big-team science does not guarantee generalizability. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 1053–1056 (2024). · DOI
  13. Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J. & Ginges, J. Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 115, 11401–11405 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Arnett, J. The Neglected 95%, a Challenge to Psychology’s Philosophy of Science. Am. Psychol. 64, 571–574 (2009). · DOI
  15. Vlasceanu, M. et al. Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Sci. Adv. 10, eadj5778 (2024). · DOI
  16. Mishra, S. K. et al. A need for actionable climate projections across the Global South. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 883–886 (2023). · DOI
  17. Grahe, J. E., Cuccolo, K., Leighton, D. C. & Cramblet Alvarez, L. D. Open Science Promotes Diverse, Just, and Sustainable Research and Educational Outcomes. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 19, 5–20 (2020). · DOI
  18. Leonelli, S. Open Science and Epistemic Diversity: Friends or Foes? Philos. Sci. 89, 991–1001 (2022). · DOI
  19. Stracke, C. M. Open Science and Radical Solutions for Diversity, Equity and Quality in Research: A Literature Review of Different Research Schools, Philosophies and Frameworks and Their Potential Impact on Science and Education. In Radical Solutions and Open Science: An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education (ed. Burgos, D.) 17–37. (Springer, Singapore, 2020). · DOI
  20. Bahlai, C. et al. Open science isn’t always open to all scientists. Am. Scientist 107, 78–82 (2019). · DOI
  21. Lui, P. P. Integrating open science and multiculturalism to restore trust in psychology. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 555–556 (2022). · DOI
  22. Syed, M. Reproducibility, Diversity, and the Crisis of Inference in Psychology. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/89buj (2021). · DOI
  23. Jin, H. et al. The Chinese Open Science Network (COSN): Building an Open Science Community From Scratch. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 6, 25152459221144986 (2023). · DOI
  24. Adetula, A., Forscher, P. S., Basnight-Brown, D., Azouaghe, S. & IJzerman, H. Psychology should generalize from — not just to — Africa. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 370–371 (2022). · DOI
  25. Yang, Y. & Konrath, S. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between economic inequality and prosocial behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1899–1916 (2023). · DOI
  26. Speed, L. J., Wnuk, E. & Majid, A. Studying psycholinguistics out of the lab. in Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide 190–207 (Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, US, 2018). https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2339692_9/component/file_2355162/content · DOI
  27. Chaudhary, L., Rubin, J., Iyer, S. & Shrivastava, A. Culture and colonial legacy: Evidence from public goods games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 173, 107–129 (2020). · DOI
  28. Muthukrishna, M. & Henrich, J. A problem in theory. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 221–229 (2019). · DOI
  29. Broesch, T. et al. Navigating cross-cultural research: methodological and ethical considerations. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20201245 (2020).
  30. Puthillam, A. et al. Guidelines to improve internationalization in the psychological sciences. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 18, e12847 (2024). · DOI
  31. Deffner, D., Rohrer, J. M. & McElreath, R. A Causal Framework for Cross-Cultural Generalizability. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 5, 25152459221106366 (2022). · DOI
  32. Ledgerwood, A. et al. Disrupting racism and global exclusion in academic publishing: Recommendations and resources for authors, reviewers, and editors. Collabra: Psychol. 10, 121394 (2024). · DOI
  33. Manago, B. Preregistration and Registered Reports in Sociology: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Other Considerations. Am. Sociol. 54, 193–210 (2023). · DOI
  34. Wagenmakers, E.-J. et al. Seven steps toward more transparency in statistical practice. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1473–1480 (2021). · DOI
  35. Pownall, M. et al. Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10, 221255 (2023). · DOI
  36. Jeftic, A., Lucas, M. Y., Corral-Frias, N.,& Azevedo, F. Bridging the majority and minority worlds: Liminal researchers as catalysts for inclusive open and big-team science. In P. Forscher & M. Schmidt (Eds). A better how: Notes on developmental meta-research. https://doi.org/10.62372/ISCI6112 (2024) · DOI
  37. Azevedo, F. et al. Towards a culture of open scholarship: the role of pedagogical communities. BMC Res. Notes 15, 75 (2022). · DOI
  38. Pownall, M. et al. Embedding open and reproducible science into teaching: A bank of lesson plans and resources. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 10, 342–349 (2024). · DOI
  39. Fish, J. M. What anthropology can do for psychology: Facing physics envy, ethnocentrism, and a belief in ‘race.’. Am. Anthropol. 102, 552–563 (2000). · DOI
  40. Nwoye, A. African psychology: from acquiescence to dissent. South Afr. J. Psychol. 51, 464–473 (2021). · DOI
  41. Adame, F. Meaningful collaborations can end ‘helicopter research’. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1 (2021). · DOI
  42. Singh, L. Navigating equity and justice in international collaborations. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 372–373 (2022). · DOI
  43. Abo-Zena, M. M., Jones, K. & Mattis, J. Dismantling the master’s house: Decolonizing “Rigor” in psychological scholarship. J. Soc. Issues 78, 298–319 (2022). · DOI
  44. Castro Torres, A. F. & Alburez-Gutierrez, D. North and South: Naming practices and the hidden dimension of global disparities in knowledge production. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2119373119 (2022). · DOI
  45. Kumar, R., Khosla, R. & McCoy, D. Decolonising global health research: Shifting power for transformative change. PLOS Glob. Public Health 4, e0003141 (2024). · DOI
  46. Schimmelpfennig, R. et al. The Moderating Role of Culture in the Generalizability of Psychological Phenomena. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 7, 25152459231225163 (2024). · DOI
  47. Azevedo, F. et al. Introducing a Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT). Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bnh7p (2019). · DOI
  48. Clarke, B., Schiavone, S. & Vazire, S. What limitations are reported in short articles in social and personality psychology? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 125, 874–901 (2023). · DOI
  49. Findley, M. G., Kikuta, K. & Denly, M. External Validity. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 24, 365–393 (2021). · DOI
  50. Hoekstra, R. & Vazire, S. Aspiring to greater intellectual humility in science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1602–1607 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  51. Ijzerman, H., et al. Psychological science needs the entire globe, Part 1 (Vol. 34). APS Observer (2021).
  52. Hruschka, D. J., Medin, D. L. & Rogoff, J. Henrich, Pressing questions in the study of psychological and behavioral diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. Usa. 115, 11366–11368 (2018). · DOI
  53. Heidt, A. Racial inequalities in journals highlighted in giant study. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01457-4. (2023) · DOI
  54. Zurn, P., Teich, E. G., Simon, S. C., Kim, J. Z. & Bassett, D. S. Supporting academic equity in physics through citation diversity. Commun. Phys. 5, 1–5 (2022). · DOI
  55. Fokt, S., Pharr, Q. & Torregrossa, C. Indexing Philosophy in a Fair and Inclusive Key. J. Am. Philos. Assoc. 10, 387–408 (2024). · DOI
  56. Urbina-Blanco, C. A. et al. A diverse view of science to catalyse change. Nat. Chem. 12, 773–776 (2020). · DOI
  57. Allen, L., O’Connell, A. & Kiermer, V. How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learn. Publ. 32, 71–74 (2019). · DOI
  58. Nakagawa, S. et al. Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions. Nat. Commun. 14, 1788 (2023). · DOI
  59. Degtiar, I. & Rose, S. A Review of Generalizability and Transportability. Annu. Rev. Stat. Its Appl. 10, 501–524 (2023). · DOI
  60. Majid, A. Establishing psychological universals. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2, 199–200 (2023). · DOI
  61. Ghai, S. It’s time to reimagine sample diversity and retire the WEIRD dichotomy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 971–972 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  62. Henrich, J. WEIRD. In M. C. Frank & A. Majid (Eds.), Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.21428/e2759450.8e9a83b0 (2024). · DOI
  63. Ruggeri, K. et al. The globalizability of temporal discounting. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1386–1397 (2022). · DOI
  64. Riddle, T. Linguistic overfitting in empirical psychology. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qasde (2018). · DOI
  65. Kline, M. A., Shamsudheen, R. & Broesch, T. Variation is the universal: making cultural evolution work in developmental psychology. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170059 (2018). · DOI
  66. Clarke, B. et al. Looking our limitations in the eye: A call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 18, e12979 (2024). · DOI
  67. Vinkers, C. H., Tijdink, J. K. & Otte, W. M. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ 351, h6467 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  68. Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E. & Yeager, D. S. Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 980–989 (2021). · DOI
  69. Vazire, S. Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 411–417 (2018). · DOI
  70. Parsons, S. et al. A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 312–318 (2022). · DOI
  71. Ma, V. & Schoeneman, T. J. Individualism Versus Collectivism: A Comparison of Kenyan and American Self-Concepts. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1902_7. (1997). · DOI
  72. Ahmed, A. et al. The future of academic publishing. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1021–1026 (2023). · DOI
  73. Ellard-Gray, A., Jeffrey, N. K., Choubak, M. & Crann, S. E. Finding the Hidden Participant: Solutions for Recruiting Hidden, Hard-to-Reach, and Vulnerable Populations. Int. J. Qual. Methods 14, 1609406915621420 (2015). · DOI
  74. Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T. & Dotson, K. Epistemic exclusion: Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. J. Divers. High. Educ. 14, 493–507 (2021). · DOI
  75. Liu, F., Rahwan, T. & AlShebli, B. Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 120, e2215324120 (2023). · DOI
  76. Lin, Z. & Li, N. Global diversity of authors, editors, and journal ownership across subdisciplines of psychology: Current state and policy implications. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18, 358–377 (2023). · DOI
  77. Aly, M. et al. Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 152, 3546–3565 (2023). · DOI
  78. Hwang, S. I. et al. Is ChatGPT a “Fire of Prometheus” for Non-Native English-Speaking Researchers in Academic Writing? Korean J. Radiol. 24, 952–959 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  79. Ingley, S. J. & Pack, A. Leveraging AI tools to develop the writer rather than the writing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 785–787 (2023). · DOI
  80. Mughogho, W., Adhiambo, J. & Forscher, P. S. African researchers must be full participants in behavioural science research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01536-6 (2023). · DOI
  81. Kim, M. H. et al. A metascience investigation of inclusive, open, and reproducible science practices in research posters at the 2021 SRCD biennial meeting. Child Dev. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14059. (2023). · DOI
  82. Singh, L. A vision for a diverse, inclusive, equitable, and representative developmental science. Developmental Sci. 27, e13548 (2024). · DOI
  83. Czerniewicz, L. Confronting inequitable power dynamics of global knowledge production and exchange: feature-opinion. Water Wheel 14, 26–28 (2015).
  84. Fawzy, A. et al. Racial and Ethnic Discrepancy in Pulse Oximetry and Delayed Identification of Treatment Eligibility Among Patients With COVID-19. JAMA Intern. Med. 182, 730–738 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  85. Medin, D. L. Psychological Science as a Complex System: Report Card. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 669–674 (2017). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ghai, S., Thériault, R., Forscher, P., Shoda, Y., Syed, M., Puthillam, A., Peng, H. C., Basnight-Brown, D., Majid, A., Azevedo, F., & Singh, L.
Venue
Communications Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-01-29
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
2731-9121
DOI
10.1038/s44271-024-00179-1
PMC
PMC11779813
Cited by
32
References
18
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review